User Tag List

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 3456789 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 143

Thread: Other than glorification, what is the need for the Holy Spirit in the open view?

  1. #76
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Speaking for myself, I didn't see the point in engaging with you in any detail because you proved that you were either incapable or unwilling to deal with what I said at face value.
    You called me a liar for no other reason than that you could not accept what I said.
    I repeated what I said several times but still you refused to acknowledge it, all the time claiming that I said something else.
    Though you say I have misrepresented you in other posts, I just want to post something you said that shows you misunderstand the Reformed perspective and shows your tried-and-true surface-meaning of the text proves to be quite shallow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Secondly, I don't exegete these passages to adhere to open theism. All I do is try to understand what the passages mean and be informed by them. Satan incited David does not mean that David was forced to do what he did. But it does mean that what David did was wrong and that David succumbed to the temptation. And inasmuch as God incited David to do it, again David didn't need to do it. God was angry with Israel for some unspecified reason and would have found some other way to bring judgement on them if David didn't want to command the census. It is tedious repeating all this. If David had not succumbed to this temptation the Bible would have just been written differently and you wouldn't be any the wiser. That's how history works.
    If you recall this is from two passages:

    “Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, ‘Go, number Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, and bring me a report, that I may know their number’” (1 Chron. 21:1-3).

    “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’ So the king said to Joab, the commander of the army, who was with him, ‘Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people’” (2 Sam. 24:1-3).

    First, you made a point to say that David was never forced to do this. That is one aspect of sovereignty that those who are non-Reformed misunderstand, and straw-man against Calvinists. God does not force anyone to do anything. When one chooses, they do so willingly (we can discuss that more later).

    Second, you said,

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    "If David had not succumbed to this temptation the Bible would have just been written differently and you wouldn't be any the wiser."
    Well, 2 Sam. 24:1-3 says that God incited David to do it, which you then used the word 'temptation.' [/quote]

    But doesn't James 1:13 say, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one."

    You have a problem because you have two parallel texts here speaking of the same events with two different agents 'inciting' David to sin. Again, David was not forced, he gave into the temptation. So, how do you respond when you this issue? You don't You never resolved the tension in the texts. You merely gave me a list of synonyms for 'incite.'

    The Hebrew word and usage in the OT is:

    5496. סוּת suth (694c); a prim. root; to incite, allure, instigate:—diverted(1), entice(2), enticed(1), incited(3), inciting(1), induced(1), mislead(2), misleading(1), misleads(1), misled(1), moved(1), persuaded(2), stirred(1).

    So, how can a plain reading of the Scriptures solve this problem? Or are you going to discredit my use of James 1:13? Did God 'incite' David to sin or did Satan do it? You referred to it as David giving into temptation, but God temps no one. Your interpretation is shallow because of your interpretive principles: face-value-reading. These texts require more than that to give a thorough answer. You left God to violate his own nature—He 'tempted' David?

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    You said repeatedly and incorrectly that my issue was that Calvinists added their own presuppositions. That wasn't what I said.
    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    If you keep on developing this line of thought, as you read the Bible more, perhaps you will also realise that (Calvinistic) predestination is not in the Bible either and for the exact same reason that trinity also is not.
    If (Calvinistic) predestination is not in the Bible, wouldn't you say then that Calvin, through his own presuppositions, came up with his own form of predestination, which I now add into my reading of the text?

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    I said that my creed was deliberately non-doctrinaire because I wanted to focus on faith and relationship and then you asked me about my doctrine of the deity of Christ and how my creed differentiated between me and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. You asked this question several times even though I had stated clearly that my creed was not intended to be doctrinaire.
    When I answered specifically about the deity of Christ, pointing out that the issue was one of relationship, i.e. my relationship with Jesus, how I worship him and so on, and not whether he was in substance God, you chose to completely misinterpret this as meaning that I held a doctrine of the deity of Christ and questioned me about that.
    Any time you make a claim of what you believe the Bible to teach, 'relational theology' or not, you are establishing a doctrine. Your term 'relational theology' is a doctrine!

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    And I warned you of how different the theology of openness was and you did not heed it, all the time seeking to know what my doctrines were and how I used scripture to establish doctrine (which you lied about in saying that I claimed to be without presuppositions) when all the time I said that I wasn't trying to establish doctrine at all.
    You made this claim:

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    I guess I am going to be somewhat reticent about trusting any interpretation you might place on a text written 3000 years ago or more in another language by a people with completely different cultural norms to your own.
    So, why should I trust your interpretation of a text written 3000 years ago or more in an other language by a people with completely different cultural norms to your own? Oh, because yours is the 'face-value plain reading,' whereas mine is . . . not? A plain reading of the text is clear enough for one to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ; however, there are many difficult areas to understand in the Bible; even Peter spoke of Paul's letters being that way (2 Pet. 3:16), which have been distorted because of that difficulty. So, there were people in that local context and culture, that misunderstood his letters, as with the other texts of the Bible. Do you think they failed to read them at face-value? Afterall, it should have been much easier for them being living on-top of context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Is it a wonder, having treated me like this, that others are unwilling to deal with you?
    But please don't by any means imagine that I or other open theists are unable to answer your question about John 6:64.
    So, why have they not? If all is needed is a plain-reading of the face-value of that text, then why not respond? Why not simply point it out, within the text itself, what it means?

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    I can tell you that I am fully comfortable with every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
    As am I

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    This is a great deal more than many of the reformed persuasion, who, unwilling to accept what the Bible says at face value in proper context, resort to all sorts of tricks and subterfuge, including claiming that some other text in the Bible 'clarifies' the matter or takes precedence,
    So, was my use of James 1:13 to show that God doesn't tempt anyone to sin, which you referred to as a temptation, a trick or act of subterfuge?

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    that it is anthropomorphism, that it is mystery or resorting to spurious references to original texts as if to blind your hearers with science or many other such devices to avoid confronting what the text says. And you end up being so blinded by your own doctrines, that you can no longer see the obvious.
    And that indeed is what has happened to you with John 6:64.
    I appealed to being a finite creature who cannot fully know the mind of God, recognizing that, I hope I can use this Scripture, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever" (Deut. 29:29). Or is that an act of subterfuge to support my position that we cannot know all things God knows? I think a plain reading of that text says that there are things that God does and know that are a secret to us creatures. Or, how about this verse, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings" (Prov. 25:2). Or, about Job 42:3, "Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' "Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." Job questioned God in 38:2 presuming he knew God's wisdom but obviously he concedes that he did not understand. So, do any of these verses plainly show that there is some mystery that we might have to appeal to? I would rather appeal to mystery then make the mistake that Job did, which God chided him for. However, God showed Job that allowing Satan to do what he did was ultimately for his benefit in the end.

    Oh, yeah, as I was strolling through our previous discussion, you never did address my question about Gen. 3:15.

    Bob Enyart
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    said that the seed/offspring of the woman in Genesis 3:15 is in reference to Christ. Now, I believe that as well. But in light of your comments regarding how you interpret the Bible, how can he believe that? I would have to assume you also share the same model of interpretation since you are both open theists.
    Now, I have learned, however, that that is not the case among OTs.

    However,

    You did say that your method of interpretation is
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    “how open theists interpret the Old Testament.”
    So do you believe this? If so, how did you arrive to this conclusion based on what you said?:

    “The meaning of a text is determined by itself, not by some other text whether in the New Testament, the Old Testament or anywhere else. The principle that passages in the Bible are interpreted in reference to other passages is a false principle and leads to unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes. Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach. If you introduce random passages as essential contributors to the meaning of some particular passage, then you bring randomness and unpredictability into hermeneutics.”[/quote]

    How can you come up with that interpretation from a plain-face-value reading of that text?

    I do want to say that in going through the posts on our first discussion, I did see on a post that I did mis-represent you when I asserted that you said that you are claiming to not have presuppositions. And you were right, you did not say that you didn't.

    So, for what it's worth, I do apologize for that.
    —Romans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  2. #77
    TOL Subscriber musterion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,202
    Thanks
    4,465
    Thanked 20,984 Times in 11,989 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    surface-meaning of the text proves to be quite shallow.
    face-value-reading.
    Oh, because yours is the [scare quotes!] 'face-value plain reading,'
    A plain reading of the text is clear enough for one to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ; however, [uh oh]there are many difficult areas to understand in the Bible
    If all is needed is a plain-reading of the face-value of that text...
    Ta-da! The Augustinian speaks.
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

  3. #78
    LIFETIME MEMBER Desert Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 190 Times in 122 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    454965
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    If you recall this is from two passages:

    (1 Chron. 21:1-3).
    (2 Sam. 24:1-3).

    First, you made a point to say that David was never forced to do this. That is one aspect of sovereignty that those who are non-Reformed misunderstand, and straw-man against Calvinists. God does not force anyone to do anything. When one chooses, they do so willingly (we can discuss that more later).
    As you say, that is a separate discussion. Whether we get around to discussing is unlikely at the moment.

    Second, you said, ...

    Well, 2 Sam. 24:1-3 says that God incited David to do it, which you then used the word 'temptation.'
    And once again you misrepresent me. Or at very least exaggerate or twist.
    Because I only used the word 'temptation' in reference to Satan tempting David.

    But doesn't James 1:13 say, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one."
    This is irrelevant because I didn't say it anyway.

    You have a problem because you have two parallel texts here speaking of the same events with two different agents 'inciting' David to sin.
    No. The problem I have is getting you to accept what I say at face value and not distort it.

    Again, David was not forced, he gave into the temptation. So, how do you respond when you this issue? You don't You never resolved the tension in the texts. You merely gave me a list of synonyms for 'incite.'
    My purpose in showing the meaning of 'incite' was to show that there was nothing forcing about it. You say that I have misunderstood Calvinism here. That is another discussion.


    So, how can a plain reading of the Scriptures solve this problem? Or are you going to discredit my use of James 1:13? Did God 'incite' David to sin or did Satan do it? You referred to it as David giving into temptation, but God temps no one.
    As I said, there is no problem. You are making up the problem yourself.

    Your interpretation is shallow because of your interpretive principles: face-value-reading. These texts require more than that to give a thorough answer. You left God to violate his own nature—He 'tempted' David?
    Nope. Again. It is your hermeneutic that is faulty. When God tested Abraham (Heb 11, I believe) same Greek word as James 1:13. This absolutely refutes your point. Absolutely.

    Your only possible defence here is that the word peiradzomenos (from peiradzo) is being used in a different sense. And if you choose to take that defence then you are left with 2 possibilities
    1. Special pleading
    2. Abandon your hermeneutic of letting scripture interpret scripture because if you want to justify two different meanings of peiradzo then you can only resort to using the immediate context of each as evidence.

    If (Calvinistic) predestination is not in the Bible, wouldn't you say then that Calvin, through his own presuppositions, came up with his own form of predestination, which I now add into my reading of the text?
    Sure. I might say that. In answer to your question. But that was not what I said before. And it doesn't get you off the hook for misrepresenting what I actually did say.

    Any time you make a claim of what you believe the Bible to teach, 'relational theology' or not, you are establishing a doctrine. Your term 'relational theology' is a doctrine!
    Go on then, where have I made a claim of saying what the Bible teaches?
    Where?

    So, why should I trust your interpretation of a text written 3000 years ago or more in an other language by a people with completely different cultural norms to your own?
    I didn't ask you to.
    And I don't ask others to either. Because I present all what I know in front of them. So they can see for themselves. I don't ask them to trust me. I consider that being manipulative.

    My point is that if you can't understand the words that I write then how are you going to understand ancient texts? You haven't given me an answer to this.

    however, there are many difficult areas to understand in the Bible; even Peter spoke of Paul's letters being that way (2 Pet. 3:16), which have been distorted because of that difficulty. So, there were people in that local context and culture, that misunderstood his letters, as with the other texts of the Bible. Do you think they failed to read them at face-value? Afterall, it should have been much easier for them being living on-top of context.
    You obviously didn't learn much from the 1-1 I had with Lon, which you say you read. I said

    I also want to make it very clear that whether or not we are left "to every wind of many doctrines and interpretations.", is not at all the issue here. If a text is unclear in meaning, then that is what it is. Any rule that suggests we should add clarity to a text that is inherently unclear simply because we want it to be clear will constitute a distortion of the text itself.
    So, was my use of James 1:13 to show that God doesn't tempt anyone to sin, which you referred to as a temptation, a trick or act of subterfuge?
    See above. James 1:13 and Hebrews 11 absolutely refute your hermeneutic as regards David's taking of the census.

    I appealed to being a finite creature who cannot fully know the mind of God, recognizing that, I hope I can use this Scripture, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever" (Deut. 29:29). Or is that an act of subterfuge to support my position that we cannot know all things God knows?
    That's a typical Calvin text taken out of its context.
    Also, you have not shown that you are a finite creature.


    I think a plain reading of that text says that there are things that God does and know that are a secret to us creatures. Or, how about this verse, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings" (Prov. 25:2).
    Same. I've read Calvin too you know.

    So, do any of these verses plainly show that there is some mystery that we might have to appeal to? I would rather appeal to mystery then make the mistake that Job did, which God chided him for. However, God showed Job that allowing Satan to do what he did was ultimately for his benefit in the end.
    I'm not following your logic here. You seem to be saying that because some things in the Bible are mysterious, therefore your hermeneutic is correct???

    I do want to say that in going through the posts on our first discussion, I did see on a post that I did mis-represent you when I asserted that you said that you are claiming to not have presuppositions. And you were right, you did not say that you didn't.

    So, for what it's worth, I do apologize for that.
    Now you are taking the Michael.

    You are saying that after calling me a liar more than once after I had expressly denied it three times. It does not appear to have been a mistake on your part that you only now see you made on going over it again. I expressly denied it and pointed it out to you and you still called me a liar. That was deliberate or reckless on your part.

    And that wasn't the only thing in which you misrepresented me or ignored me.

    Again, I don't see how anyone can trust your interpretation of texts 3000 years old and in another language if you can't get this kind of thing right.
    Total Misanthropy.
    Uncertain salvation.
    Luck of the draw.
    Irresistible damnation.
    Persecution of the saints.

    Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
    (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

    RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
    Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
    Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

  4. #79
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    As you say, that is a separate discussion. Whether we get around to discussing is unlikely at the moment.

    And once again you misrepresent me. Or at very least exaggerate or twist.
    Because I only used the word 'temptation' in reference to Satan tempting David.
    So, what was God doing then? How do you know it is not the same as Satan? They are the same texts. If you can't go to other texts, then how are you to resolve this problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post

    No. The problem I have is getting you to accept what I say at face value and not distort it.
    But the face-value understanding of these verses creates an inconsistency in God's Word. One verse says God did it; the other says Satan did. You can't say Satan tempted David to sin here but God did not tempt David to sin—that is arbitrary.

    By your interpretive method, we cannot look outside of these texts to get a fuller understanding of what is going on. So, if I just follow your way, in this example, All I can say is that God incited David to sin, and Satan incited David to sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    My purpose in showing the meaning of 'incite' was to show that there was nothing forcing about it. You say that I have misunderstood Calvinism here. That is another discussion.
    You still haven't resolved the tension. Who incited David? The face-value reading of each text tells us that Satan did and that God did? But you only want to ascribe the temptation to be from Satan; why not ascribe it to God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    As I said, there is no problem. You are making up the problem yourself.
    Again, you still have not resolved the tension.


    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Nope. Again. It is your hermeneutic that is faulty. When God tested Abraham (Heb 11, I believe) same Greek word as James 1:13. This absolutely refutes your point. Absolutely.
    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    The meaning of a text is determined by itself, not by some other text whether in the New Testament, the Old Testament or anywhere else. . . . Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach. If you introduce random passages as essential contributors to the meaning of some particular passage, then you bring randomness and unpredictability into hermeneutics.
    So, now you are jumping around to random passages with the same word being used but clearly different contexts? One is about God's nature and the other is about God's testing Abraham. You are changing how you interpret now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Your only possible defence here is that the word peiradzomenos (from peiradzo) is being used in a different sense. And if you choose to take that defence then you are left with 2 possibilities
    1. Special pleading
    2. Abandon your hermeneutic of letting scripture interpret scripture because if you want to justify two different meanings of peiradzo then you can only resort to using the immediate context of each as evidence.
    Neither; I am trying to properly represent God as biblically as possible by going to James 1:13; its not subterfuge, as you word it. The context of that passage has to do with God's nature and that he cannot tempt anyone to sin. Your use of Heb. 11 is irrelevant. We both agree that God did not 'tempt' David to sin. So, how else are you to support that assertion (that God did not tempt; Satan tempted) without using other Scriptures speaking of God's character to resolved that issue? If you don't, you must concede that both Satan and God tempted David to sin.

    Sure. I might say that. In answer to your question. But that was not what I said before. And it doesn't get you off the hook for misrepresenting what I actually did say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Go on then, where have I made a claim of saying what the Bible teaches?
    Where?

    I didn't ask you to.
    Seriously? Anytime you present to someone what you believe the Bible teaches, reveals, demonstrates, shows us, or whatever synonym you want to use—regarding your relational theology—you are asserting that that is what the Bible teaches.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    And I don't ask others to either. Because I present all what I know in front of them. So they can see for themselves. I don't ask them to trust me. I consider that being manipulative.
    You present your views because you want people to trust what you say to be true. Why else would you even present your views to anyone on the Bible? Not too mention that you believe so many people have been led astray into the teachings of Calvinism and the divisive creeds throughout the years. Come on, guy; Seriously? We all present what we believe to be what the Bible teaches, looking to get people to see 'the truth' as we see it. Why else would you be so indignant about Reformed theology and any 'doctrinal' system? I never came off about open theism the way you and others have when sharing their thoughts about Calvinism. I don't have the disdain for open theology and those who follow it, like you and many others appear to have for Calvinists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    My point is that if you can't understand the words that I write then how are you going to understand ancient texts? You haven't given me an answer to this.

    You obviously didn't learn much from the 1-1 I had with Lon, which you say you read. I said
    It was quite long; I should cruise through it again. It just seems like you are talking over me and I am talking over you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    See above. James 1:13 and Hebrews 11 absolutely refute your hermeneutic as regards David's taking of the census.
    I don't see how; you still have not resolved it and you jumped to a random, contextually irrelevant passage to support your absolute refutation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Also, you have not shown that you are a finite creature.
    That sounds a little gnostic, but I don't want to presume too much and misread what your are saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    I'm not following your logic here. You seem to be saying that because some things in the Bible are mysterious, therefore your hermeneutic is correct???
    Nope. I would just rather not go further than the Bible leads me. I would rather be safe than be a heretic, like those Peter spoke of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Again, I don't see how anyone can trust your interpretation of texts 3000 years old and in another language if you can't get this kind of thing right.
    Ditto.

    Oh, you still have not addressed my question regarding Genesis 3:15.
    —Romans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  5. #80
    LIFETIME MEMBER Desert Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 190 Times in 122 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    454965
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    So, what was God doing then? How do you know it is not the same as Satan? They are the same texts. If you can't go to other texts, then how are you to resolve this problem?
    All your rhetorical questions are just shooting in the air. There isn't a problem. God wasn't tempting David to sin. Satan was, as he likes to do, but God wasn't.

    I don't ask people to trust me, except possibly in extreme situations. I am intellectual. I believe in thought. I believe in people doing things because they want to. I believe in people being convinced in their own minds. I believe in personal growth.
    Or are you going to call me a liar again?

    You believe in what you call 'pastoring'. You think that because you are on the front lines you need to feed people, you need to cook for them, you need to fight their battles.
    I don't believe that. I believe in strengthening people so that they can understand it for themselves, even if their understanding ends up different from mine.
    I might even argue with them.
    But I won't ask them to trust me.
    That is condescending, patronising and ultimately soul-destroying.
    What I think you are doing is not pastoring but posturing.

    This is where you admit that your hermeneutic is faulty. This is where you admit that every passage must be read in its own proper context:

    So, now you are jumping around to random passages with the same word being used but clearly different contexts? One is about God's nature and the other is about God's testing Abraham. You are changing how you interpret now?
    Last edited by Desert Reign; March 19th, 2015 at 10:52 AM.
    Total Misanthropy.
    Uncertain salvation.
    Luck of the draw.
    Irresistible damnation.
    Persecution of the saints.

    Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
    (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

    RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
    Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
    Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

  6. #81
    SHAZAM! Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,776
    Thanks
    1,263
    Thanked 13,448 Times in 10,292 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147888
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    I made an analogy and backed it up with Scriptures. As of yet, no argument has been advanced using Scripture. I am just getting school-yard remarks.
    What Scriptures?


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    LoneStar (April 23rd, 2016)

  8. #82
    TOL Subscriber musterion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,202
    Thanks
    4,465
    Thanked 20,984 Times in 11,989 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147774
    Tick tock, tick tock...
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

  9. #83
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    All your rhetorical questions are just shooting in the air. There isn't a problem. God wasn't tempting David to sin. Satan was, as he likes to do, but God wasn't.

    I don't ask people to trust me, except possibly in extreme situations. I am intellectual. I believe in thought. I believe in people doing things because they want to. I believe in people being convinced in their own minds. I believe in personal growth.
    Or are you going to call me a liar again?

    You believe in what you call 'pastoring'. You think that because you are on the front lines you need to feed people, you need to cook for them, you need to fight their battles.
    I don't believe that. I believe in strengthening people so that they can understand it for themselves, even if their understanding ends up different from mine.
    I might even argue with them.
    But I won't ask them to trust me.
    That is condescending, patronising and ultimately soul-destroying.
    What I think you are doing is not pastoring but posturing.

    This is where you admit that your hermeneutic is faulty. This is where you admit that every passage must be read in its own proper context:

    You got it wrong. I never said I was a pastor. Though I do pastoral ministry, I am in the ordainment process, it's not about cooking and serving food, though it is a great way to serve the community. Pastoral ministry is the preaching and teaching the word of God, feeding the sheep, and praying for the flock. Your error in presuming what a front-line pastor is just further shows me you have no idea what a pastors role is, according to Scripture.

    I am surprised that you made such an error considering what the face value reading of Scripture says.

    Regardless of your remarks, you till have not resolved the tension. Unless you see the passages as two separate occurrences, which I don't think you do.


    Musterion and lighthouse, I have addressed your questions with Scripture, but you just don't like the answers. You guys have not even interacted with the texts I used, so as to refute my understanding and use of them. That tells me you can't argue against it, nor can you mount a counter view that is coherent with Scripture.



    And what about Gen.3:15? Anyone? And John 6:64?
    —Romans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  10. #84
    TOL Subscriber musterion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,202
    Thanks
    4,465
    Thanked 20,984 Times in 11,989 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    Musterion and lighthouse, I have addressed your questions with Scripture
    Negative.

    You are the typical reformed drone who has never thought to actually examine the implications of Reformed theology but once those implications are called to your attention, you avoid them. That's typical Clavinist behavior here on TOL. You will prove to be no exception.
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

  11. #85
    TOL Subscriber musterion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,202
    Thanks
    4,465
    Thanked 20,984 Times in 11,989 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147774
    How can a just Judge hold people specifically responsible for disobeying the very thing He didn't enable them to obey, and be considered just?

    We can expand further, if you like, once you've nailed this point down.
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

  12. #86
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    177
    The Scriptures say he can. God's Word is clear on that. I think you need to spend some time in Romans 9-11. Paul gives his defense of that very thing. If I can't rest on Paul's words as my defense, and yet that still doesn't answer your question, then nothing else will. You just need to get over the fact that you, and everyone else, cannot fully comprehend God's unsearchable and inscrutable ways. Once you get there, to the end of the sidewalk as I like to say, you have to be ok with that it ends there. And then your faith in God's Word, his promises, and his wisdom has to be were you hang up your hat of pride and submit to God's will. He is sovereign over everything yet we are responsible for our decisions and God is just in holding us accountable for those. Furthermore, his will does not force us to do anything we don't want to do, which is why we are accountable. We sin because we are sinners.

    It's not a contradiction because I can fully demonstrate with the Scriptures that this is the case.

    And I am happy to send you my book to demonstrate that.
    —Romans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  13. #87
    TOL Subscriber musterion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,202
    Thanks
    4,465
    Thanked 20,984 Times in 11,989 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147774
    That is not what Rom 9 teaches.

    The God of the Bible can't damn someone for doing exactly that which He (secretly, according to you) preordained them to do, while blaming them for it as if they had the free will to choose otherwise. That would make His stated reason for condemning them a lie.
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

  14. #88
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    177
    Read it again.

    Don't focus on what you think God cannot do; focus on what Paul says God can and does do.

    Also, I said Romans 9-11. Not just 9. 9-11 is the full context of Paul's thought.
    —Romans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  15. #89
    TOL Subscriber musterion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,202
    Thanks
    4,465
    Thanked 20,984 Times in 11,989 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147774
    Paul said God is free to use nations -- the actual context of Romans 9-11 -- as He sees fit, and has done so throughout history. That is the God of the Bible.

    Paul did not say God refused to enable individuals to believe the Gospel and then damns them for not believing it. That is the god of Reformed theology and it is a lying idol...one that condemns non-breathers for not breathing, when the reason they don't is because they can't, and the reason they can't is because your false god chose not to give them lungs.
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

  16. #90
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    177
    I will go ahead and paste in a portion of my book addressing that argument from a college professor, who advancing his views did not address it; either he did not want to handle it or just knew that he couldn't and left it out:

    (From pp. 36-44)

    "Now, while Richardson does not mention it, I think it’s important that we address a common objection regarding the “whom” as it pertains to God’s sovereign choice and purpose in election. The main objection from non-Calvinists is that when Paul writes of election in Roman’s 9:1-13, they believe that “the passage is not speaking about electing of individuals but nations.” The Reformed position sees that the Scriptures speak of election primarily as an individual election unto salvation, with the election of nations in God’s purpose in history to be secondary. So then, the question is, “Is predestination in reference to individuals or nations?” Let’s work through the passage. However, before beginning our examination of Romans 9, it is important that we briefly backtrack through Romans 8, and the rest of the letter, to set our context for Romans 9.

    In Romans 8, Paul expresses to us that our guarantee of deliverance is assured in the love of God through Christ Jesus. Nothing can separate us from him. His purpose in this chapter is to demonstrate to all Christians that there is no longer eternal condemnation for those who are in Christ (8:1). Those who are in Christ have been made alive by the Spirit to walk in a way that is now pleasing to God (8:1-8). How is that? Because God sent his Son to die in the flesh, condemning the sin of the flesh, “in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (8:4). Those who are in Christ now have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them giving life to those who were once dead (8:9-10). Through this indwelling of the Spirit, we have now been adopted in the family of God, for we are now “sons of God” (8:14). And, this is important for the next chapter, the Spirit is our witness, our guarantee, that we are children of God and fellow heirs with Christ and will be glorified with him (8:16-17). So, Paul is affirming for us that those who are in Christ, the elect, are now part of the covenant. And they were predestined to be part of it (8:28-30). This language of election was originally specific to the people of Israel in the Old Testament. Israel was God’s chosen people who were the heirs of blessing to receive the promises God had purposed for them. In Deuteronomy 7, Moses tells us that Israel was chosen to be a “people holy to the LORD” (7:6a). Israel was chosen as his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth . . . because . . . the LORD set his love on you (7:6b-7). Israel shall be “blessed above all peoples” (7:14).

    From this, we see that Israel was supposed to be blessed above all, for it was the chosen people, the descendants of Abraham, that were to become a great nation and receive all the blessings that come with the covenant God made with them (Genesis 15; 17). Those who were circumcised and received the Law from God were the elect of God. From our understanding of what the OT says regarding Israel, we can see how those who are Jews might object to what Paul is saying in this chapter. However, we need to be reminded of what Paul has already clearly expressed in the previous sections of this letter.

    In Romans 1, Paul made it clear that the entire race of mankind is guilty of sin in its rejection of God. In Romans 2, Paul makes sure to explain to the Jews that this guilt and judgment for that guilt of transgression is not only a Gentile problem but a Jewish one as well. In Romans 3, Paul silences any objection to this universal indictment by making the charge that “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (3:10-12). He then goes on to say that though all Jews and Gentiles “fall short of the glory of God” (3:23), God has manifested his righteousness through Christ, by putting him forward as a propitiation for sin to be received by faith, as a gift, which redeems and justifies the guilty (3:24-25).

    Paul grounds this radical shift in understanding the purposes of God from a Jewish perspective in chapter 4, in which he goes back to the covenant of promise made with Abraham demonstrating that he was made righteous by faith not works (4:1-12). And that the promise is fully dependant on faith, which is only guaranteed to those who share in the faith of Abraham (4:16), that is, those “who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord” (4:24). In chapter 5, Paul gives us a picture of what this means for one who is a Christian. Chapters 6 and 7 are a deeper treatment of what it means to be in Christ. Paul demonstrates the significance of baptism, Christ’s death and resurrection, which is our death and resurrection to life in him, leaving the old man behind on the cross, and being released from the law of death to serve the law of God.

    Now that we have the context, Paul’s explanation regarding the reception of Gentiles into the family of God through faith, seems to pose a foreseen issue on Paul’s end to an objection regarding the promises that Israel is supposed to receive. That is what chapter 9 seeks to answer. After Paul closes chapter 8 with the glorious assurance of God’s love for the elect, Paul begins his explanation of the foreseen objection: “What about Israel?” What is to come for those who are his kinsmen by birth, descendants of the patriarchs? In Romans 9:1-13, he writes,

    I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

    Paul recognizes that there is a distinction between the offspring according to the flesh and the Spirit. That is why we see Paul’s anguish in this chapter. He is so distraught by this issue that he wishes that he was “accursed and cut off from Christ” (9:3). His brothers, kinsmen according to the flesh, to them belong this blessing, the promises, and the inheritance from God. Seeing that they will not receive this, Paul goes into the justification of God, explaining that God’s word has not failed. His word is intended for the offspring of Abraham; however, it is for those who are offspring by promise (by faith), not by the flesh. And to buttress this truth, Paul demonstrates God’s sovereign choice in election in the account of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 18:10, 14; 25:23 (cf. Mal. 1:2,3).

    Paul makes it clear that though they were from the flesh of their forefather Isaac, and had not done anything good or bad, God’s purpose of election would continue in Jacob. Esau would serve him. This choice was based on God’s will alone, according to his predetermined plan, having nothing to do with any foreseen choice by the two children—“Not because of works but because of him who calls” (9:11). Paul establishes the correlation between the accursed (those who are of the flesh; Esau) and the elect by promise (by the sovereign election of God; Jacob). God’s word has not failed; however, “not all who have descended from Israel belong to Israel” (9:6b). If all of Israel were to be the “beneficiaries of the Messianic salvation . . . then the word of God has fallen, since many Israelites are accursed and cut off from the Messiah.”

    In his treatment of Romans 9:1-23, John Piper (addressing the objection of election to nations and not individuals) writes,

    Paul’s main goal in Romans 9:6b-13 was not to prove that God freely elected the nation of Israel, but rather his goal was to establish a principle by which he could explain how individual Israelites were accursed and yet the word of God had not fallen. What Romans 9:6b proves is that in Paul’s mind the election of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau established an ongoing principle whereby God elects unconditionally the beneficiaries of his blessing not only in the establishment of the nation from Israel by Jacob and his sons, but also within that very nation so that “all those from Israel, these are not Israel.”

    For the sake of our argument, and to continue with Paul’s argument defending the justification of God, we cannot leave Romans 9:1-13 to stand alone. In Romans 9:14-23, Paul strengthens his position by answering an objection to God’s election premised by unfairness on God’s part. He writes,

    14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

    19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

    In these verses, Paul explains that there is no injustice in God’s sovereign choice and takes us back to two OT verses which allude to God’s demonstration of his sovereignty over creation and in his ultimate plan of redemption (Exodus 33:19; 9:16). In 9:15, Paul inserts Exodus 33:19 as his grounding for his answer to the objection. In this passage, Moses asked the LORD, “please show me your glory” (Exodus 33:18). God responds favorably to him and says, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (33:19). Revealing his glory is a demonstration of this grace, and the purpose of this revealing is one of mercy and favor. Those whom God reveals himself to, favorably, have received this not on what they have done but because of God’s choice to do so.

    Furthermore, Paul’s use of this verse (Exodus 33:19) and Exodus 9:16 regarding Pharaoh was to demonstrate that his choice has nothing to do with man’s will or desire to submit to the LORD. Again, the Reformed position, as affirmed in Scripture, clearly teaches us that man is fallen and cannot please God. Pharaoh was a pagan idolater, under the wrath of God, “whose breath and heartbeat was his only as God extended it to him. . . . Pharaoh could not and would not desire to resist.” Not only do we see in the Exodus account that Pharaoh hardens his own heart (7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 32; 9:34), we also see that God hardens it as well (4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10) by not extending mercy and grace to change his will; rather, he pulls back giving Pharaoh over (Romans 1) to his sin-filled, blackened heart. And this is the point Paul is making in Romans 9:15-18. Because of Pharaoh’s hardness, he continued to push back against the omnipotent will of God, only to be broken by it, but also, and most importantly, that the LORD would display his glory to Pharaoh and the Egyptians in destruction and judgment and to Israel in God’s rescue and deliverance of them. This is the demonstration of his power in Pharaoh; it was the reason he raised him up (Romans 9:17). So, we see that whomever he has mercy on, their hearts and desires are then channeled toward the LORD, and whomever he does not show mercy to, he hardens, giving them over to their own sin and destructive desires.

    In Romans 9:19, Paul addresses another foreseen objection to God’s will in election. In an elaborated paraphrase, the objection is, “If that is the case with Pharaoh, then how can God find fault? Who then can resist God’s will if it is him alone who gives mercy to whom he wills and hardens whom he wills?” What does Paul say? Using the words of Job when facing the same issue, Paul says, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (9:20). God does not have to give us an answer. Why? Because he is the potter and we are the clay, and he has the right to do whatever he wants with the lump, making “one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use” (9:20-21). Paul concludes, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (emphasis added, 9:22-23). There is a parallel here between vessels of wrath and vessels of glory. Both are from the same lump; however, each are formed for different purposes according to God’s plan. “A vessel of wrath is one prepared for destruction that will experience God’s wrath; a vessel of mercy is one prepared for glory.”

    So, what we see in this section of Romans, what Paul is asserting, is that God’s purpose in election “is free from human influence not only in historical roles [nations] but also in the determination of who within Israel [individuals] are saved and who are not.” Therefore, if God elects individuals within a nation, this proves beyond contestation that God can and does elect individuals to salvation. He does not merely elect nations as corporate entities in a non-salvific manner, but in addition to that, he elects individuals for salvation in eternity past (Rom 8:29)."


    I would suggest for further reading you read John Piper's The Justification of God
    —Romans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us